Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 19 (0.34 seconds)
Chandan Kumar vs Krishan Kant Gaur on 7 January, 2025 cites

National Insurance Company Ltd. vs Durdadshya Kumar Samal And Ors. on 31 August, 1987

21. Respondent/Krishan Kant Gaur (driver-cum-owner) despite being indicted of rash and negligent driving of Scooty resulting in bodily injury sustained in motor vehicle accident on 30.04.2017 has not entered witness-box to rebut the allegation and adverse inference is required to be raised against the driver as per the dicta of Hon'ble High Court of Orissa in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Durdadshya Kumar Samal & Ors. 1987 SCC Online Ori.
Orissa High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 95 - Full Document

Bimla Devi & Ors vs Himachal Road Transport Corpn. & Ors on 15 April, 2009

22. Moreover, it is well settled law that negligence of the driver in case of road traffic accident is required to be established on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt does not apply to claim petitions under Motor Vehicle Act as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in para 15 of Bimla Devi & Ors. Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Ors (2009) 13 SCC 530.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 2658 - S B Sinha - Full Document

National Insurance Company Ltd. vs Smt. Pushpa Rana And Ors. on 20 December, 2007

24. Similar observation has been recorded by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in para 12 of its judgment delivered in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Pushpa Rana & Ors. 2007 SCC Online Del 1700 holding that proceedings under Motor Vehicle Act are not akin to proceeding in a civil suit hence strict rules of evidence are not required to be followed and FIR against the driver along with criminal record of the case showing completion of investigation by the police leading to Final Report are MACT No.758/2017 Chandan Kumar Vs. Krishan Kant Gaur & Anr. Page 10 of 24 sufficient proof to reach the conclusion that the driver was negligent.
Delhi High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 4796 - K Gambhir - Full Document

Mrs. Helen C. Rebello & Ors vs Maharashtra State Road Transport ... on 18 September, 1998

28. At the outset, it has to be borne in mind that compensation is not expected to be a windfall or a bonanza nor it should be MACT No.758/2017 Chandan Kumar Vs. Krishan Kant Gaur & Anr. Page 11 of 24 niggardly and Courts & Tribunals have a duty to weigh the various factors and quantify the amount of compensation which should be just. What would be "just" compensation is a vexed question. There can be no golden rule applicable to all cases for measuring the value of human life or a limb. Measure of damages cannot be arrived at by precise mathematical calculations. It would depend upon the particular facts and circumstances, and attending peculiar or special features, if any, as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Helen C. Rebello Vs. Maharasthra SRTC, 1999 (1) SCC 90.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 133 - Full Document
1   2 Next